New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed the proposed new DWI bill that would change the sentencing and penalties for DUI/DWI for all offenders. The proposed bill had been sitting on the Governor's desk for some time now and at the 11th hour, he vetoed it. For now, our DUI/DWI statutes will remain the same. In his rejection of the proposed bill, the Governor stated that he proposes we keep the current law and add additional interlock device requirements for all offenders, including first time offenders with any reading over 0.08% BAC, while continuing mandatory license suspensions.

The Governor states that we have decreased the number of fatalities due to drunk driving over the years and he wants to continue reducing that statistic, instead of allowing DUI/DWI offenders to drive.

Here is an interesting read from NPR about whether or not police actually use body cameras when they have them. The article discusses how in Denver, the police have body cameras, but in many situations involving force, the cameras are conveniently not rolling. The research showed that only 1 in 4 of these forceful incidents were recorded.

Read article and listen to NPR story here

A New Jersey man is tired of being treated like a convicted felon. In 2013, Steffon Josey-Davis was getting ready to go to work as a security guard. As he was getting into his car, he was properly preparing to transport his gun in the car, when his 6 year old sister came into the garage. Not wanting the girl to be near or see the gun, he shoved it in the glove box and closed it. Later that day, he was pulled over by the police, forgetting the gun was still in the glove box. Josey-Davis reached for his registration in the glove box and there was the weapon. Since his permit to carry was not due to be issued until the next week, he was technically carrying a weapon he was allowed to own, but not carry.

He was charged in Superior Court with possession of a firearm, a second degree felony. The gun was originally purchased for his job legally. Technically, because he did not have his card to carry the weapon, he was technically in violation of the statute and charged. He accepted a plea deal that involved a year of probation. Except he had to plead guilty to the second degree crime of unlawful possession of a weapon. As a result of the unfortunate situation, he has had incredible trouble finding a job and lost the dream of applying to the police academy.

He is currently seeking a pardon from NJ due to the overly strict gun regulations here. He claims that during August 2013-February 2014, NJ had a state firearm amnesty in effect, which means other individuals in the same situation as him were exempt from the same charge. Josey-Davis claims his "crime" occurred during that time period and he should be pardoned.

As you are aware, a hot topic right now is police shootings. Are they always justified? Are they cover-ups? The root of the problem starts with what information does an officer use to determine if she should use a gun or use his taser, assuming he has both on him. A new article explores this. In a story out of Atlanta, an unarmed black man was shot and killed. He was a veteran who suffered from  mental illness. He was found naked walking around his apartment complex. When the officer responded to the situation, he told the man to stop and back up, but then shot him. In this situation, the officer had a gun AND had a taser. If an unarmed, naked man is in front of you and you don't see a gun, there is no where to reach for a gun since he is naked, why not pick up the taser as your first choice?

Some claim that maybe the officer didn't have time to get the taser out and ready. But does that mean there was more time to get the gun out and ready? Experts state that it comes down to what the officer felt at that time in the situation. An officer will rely on his intuition to influence these split second decisions. Sometimes even more than protocol. If an officer is in fear for his or her life, he or she can use deadly force to thwart the threat. 

Of course this still leads back to the same question. Can't you taser the person, which makes them incapacitated, especially if they are on the smaller side, and then cuff them? One issue is that police are not required to carry a taser. And, even if the officer has one, it is not always effective and it can cause heart attacks in the person being tasered.

Read article here

According to a new article in the news, NJ Police are writing more tickets than usual for safety violations. A review of court records found that nearly 100,000 tickets were issued for poorly maintained lights last year. Other tickets, such as a broken windshield, were issued 39% more. Worn tires were issued 10% more.

Read more here

In Georgia, a bank teller accidentally deposited $31k into an 18 year old's account instead of a 70 year old's with the same name. The 18 year old saw the money and thought it was his lucky day! So, he withdrew $20k and then made $5k in purchases with his ATM card. When he tried to withdraw more money the next day, the bank told him about his error. Unfortunately, he already spent the money and had no way to pay it back. As a result, he was arrested with theft by taking and sentenced to 10 years probation and restitution.

Read article here

Does an individual have an obligation to prevent someone from committing suicide? In Massachusetts, an 18 year old boy wanted to kill himself. His friend, Michelle, also an 18 year old, did nothing to stop the situation. In fact, Michelle encouraged the boy to kill himself, which has resulted in a criminal charge of involuntary manslaughter. Prosecutors say that the boy drove his truck to K-Mart with a gas generator and wanted to take his own life by monoxide poisoning. While at K-Mart, the boy got out of his truck and texted Michelle that he was not sure if he should go through with his plan. Michelle then texted back "get back in". Based on this information, the police charged Michelle with manslaughter because they felt she could have notified someone about the situtation for help or attempted to convince him not to kill himself. Instead, Michelle helped the decision and encouraged the boy to take his life. While Michelle's actions are less than desirable, is it to the level where she should be charged with such a serious crime? Did Michelle have an obligation to save this boy if he chose to commit suicide? If Michelle had called someone for help, would that have actually prevented the suicide, or just prevented it that day?